[2008] KEHC 1181 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1181 (KLR)

The court found that the decretal sum had been compromised and settled by consent between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor, as evidenced by the consent order of 2nd April 2003 and subsequent court findings that the debt was fully paid. The decree-holder could not unilaterally rescind the compromise after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1181 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: M & E Consulting Engineering Limited; Respondent: Lake Basin Development Authority; Garnishee: The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 October 2008
Case Number
Civil Case 2098 of 1993
Procedural Posture
Garnishee Application / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Consent and Garnishee Orders
Outcome
applications allowed; consent and garnishee orders set aside; earlier consent restored
Legal Topics
Garnishee Proceedings, Consent Judgments, Locus Standi, Fraud in Judicial Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Garnishee Proceedings Consent Judgments Locus Standi Fraud in Judicial Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M & E Consulting Engineering Limited

Applicant

Lake Basin Development Authority

Respondent

The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishee Application / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Consent and Garnishee Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the garnishee have locus standi to challenge the consent and garnishee orders?
  2. 2 Was the decretal sum compromised and settled by consent between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor?
  3. 3 Could the decree-holder unilaterally rescind the compromise?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decretal sum had been compromised and settled by consent between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor, as evidenced by the consent order of 2nd April 2003 and subsequent court findings that the debt was fully paid. The decree-holder could not unilaterally rescind the compromise after performance by the judgment-debtor, and no further liability could accrue upon the decree. The consent order of 13th September 2006, which purported to revive the extinguished debt and create a new liability, was entered without the authority of the judgment-debtor and was fraudulent. The garnishee, holding public funds and having a fiduciary relationship with the judgment-debtor,...

Court Disposition

applications allowed; consent and garnishee orders set aside; earlier consent restored

Orders

  • The consent order dated 13th September 2006 (filed and entered as an order of the court on 14th September 2006) is set aside.
  • The consent order recorded on 2nd April 2003 is restored.